ASA Adjudication on Castingallstars.com
Castingallstars.com
Studio 24
Westbourne Studios
242 Acklam Road
London
W10
Date:
4 January 2012
Media:
Magazine
Sector:
Employment
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A11-166662
Ad
A magazine ad, viewed on 15 July 2011, stated "EXTRAS! WALK ONS! ACTORS! SINGERS! DANCERS! MODELS! MCS! We are currently auditioning for ALL TYPES OF PERFORMERS for well paid work in a top amazing new musical film being filmed in London this summer. No experience necessary! New faces very welcome! Please fill in your details at www.castingallstars.com ASAP, upon which we will contact you immediately to arrange your audition/interview at our studios in Central London".
Issue
Clive Hurst challenged whether:
1. the ad misleadingly implied that the advertiser was an employer, because he believed that they were an agency;
2. the claim "We are currently auditioning for ALL TYPES OF PERFORMERS for well paid work in a top amazing new musical film being filmed in London this summer" was misleading and could be substantiated;
3. the ad was misleading because it did not state that up-front fees were payable; and
4. the claim "our studios in Central London" was misleading, because he believed that Castingallstars.com did not have their own studios.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
Castingallstars.com said that they did not formally audition candidates or ask them to demonstrate their work. They said that they interviewed candidates for inclusion on their database and to get an idea of their skill-set for any future projects. They said that their aim was to create a community of people within the entertainment industry. They also said that they worked with a few clients and through them were able to offer work to their members on the database. They also said that they had not yet provided any members with paid work. They said that they provided professional advice to candidates at interviews and, on occasion, recommended other members from the database with who they might work.
They asserted that they did not charge for their services or sell studio sessions or photo shoots, though they did recommend member studios who offered good rates for their members. They stated that only photographs of a particular nature were considered for inclusion on their website or forwarding to other members. Therefore, if an interviewee did not have appropriate photographs, they would recommend the services of a member studio that would offer good rates. Castingallstars.com submitted a rental agreement in support of their claim that they had studios in Central London.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the ad stated, "We are currently auditioning for ALL TYPES OF PERFORMERS for well paid work". We also noted that the ad stated that they would arrange an "audition/interview" and referred to "our studios in Central London". We considered that readers would infer from the ad that the advertiser directly employed people for paid work. We understood from Castingallstars.com's response that they did not employ people directly. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
We noted that Castingallstars.com did not formally audition people, or ask for a demonstration of their work. We noted that they sought to form a community and in doing so put people into contact with clients in the industry who may be able to offer them paid or unpaid work. We also noted that to date they had not provided any paid work. We considered that the ad implied that they were formally auditioning for paid work in an actual, upcoming project. Because we understood that they did not audition anyone, and we saw no evidence that they were recruiting for actual vacancies in an upcoming musical film to be filmed in London, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 20.2 (Employment).
3. Not upheld
We noted that the complainant had forwarded us correspondence from someone who attended the interviews and was asked to pay for photography services, even though she had brought her own professional photographs. We also noted that Castingallstars.com said they did not charge any fees for attending the interviews or joining the database. We also noted that they recommended the services of other clients, but maintained these services were optional. Because we understood that Castingallstars.com did not charge up-front fees for attending the interviews we concluded that the ad was not misleading on this point.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
4. Upheld
We noted that the ad stated "our studios in Central London". We considered that readers would infer from this that the advertiser had their own studios. We noted that Castingallstars.com submitted a copy of their rental agreement, which was for a desk at a studio in the building. We considered that the ad appeared to be from an employer seeking to hire performers for roles in an upcoming film. In this context, we considered the difference between having their own studio and renting a desk was a significant one, likely to affect the reader's evaluation of what was offered in the ad and therefore the likelihood of them responding to it. Because the ad stated that Castingallstars.com had their own studio and they only rented desk space, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again.